We're Launching Version 1.4 of our Sustainable Agriculture Standard - Here's What's Changing

Version 1.3

What’s changing in version 1.4?

Version 1.3 of the Sustainable Agriculture Standard had 221 requirements and seven requirement categories.

This version was more prescriptive, requiring farm Certificate Holders to use tools like the Management Capacity Assessment Tool (MCAT). From feedback, we learned that MCAT was difficult for Certificate Holders to understand and use.

Farmers and companies also reported confusion about whether they needed separate committees to address topics like occupational health and safety, worker grievances, gender, and the Assess-and-Address approach.

While upholding the integrity of our certification program, we removed unnecessary complexity, focusing on the requirements that added value for the majority of farmers and companies.  The remaining 148 requirements and three requirement categories will facilitate easier implementation and increased data quality and focus.

For example, while MCAT is still available as an option, farms are no longer required to use it. Instead, Certificate Holders can choose their own management system to document and track their plans.

We also clarified requirements to reduce confusion and make implementation easier. For instance, we’ve clarified that farms and companies can form a single committee to address occupational health and safety, worker grievances, gender, and Assess-and-Address topics, rather than creating multiple committees.

The number of internal inspections allowed per day was limited.

Even after the initial certification audit, farm Certificate Holders were required to conduct internal inspections of 100 percent of their farms each year. This approach often created an unnecessarily heavy workload for some farms without delivering tangible benefits.

Training for internal inspectors was not specified as a requirement.

We’re shifting to a more manageable, farmer-centric approach to internal inspections.

There’s no longer a limit on the number of inspections that can be done in a day. This allows farm group management to schedule their inspections based on what works best for their specific geographic context and farming operations.

For smallholder farms, only 35 percent of farms need to be inspected each year after the first certification audit. This allows farms to focus on high-risk areas each year while still ensuring that all farms are inspected within three consecutive years. For large farms in a group of farms, 100 percent of farms must still be inspected annually.

To ensure effective inspections, internal inspectors must now undergo annual training—conducted by a competent professional with expert knowledge in standard implementation and auditing—and be evaluated to confirm their qualifications. The Rainforest Alliance will offer additional training resources to support inspectors in their role, with further details outlined in the Management Annex.

These changes aim to reduce complexity, help farms use resources more effectively, and ensure effective implementation of certification requirements. For farm group management, the new approach allows inspectors to focus on newly added farms and dedicate more attention each year to specific farms, improving the impact of inspections. For companies, this leads to stronger, more targeted inspections that contribute to a better overall monitoring system.

Innovation related to regenerative agriculture, climate adaptation, and livelihoods has always been central to our Sustainable Agriculture Standard.

Version 1.4 of our Sustainable Agriculture Standard maintains ambitious requirements contributing to regenerative agriculture, climate adaptation, and livelihoods. When we launch our specialized certification solutions in each of these impact areas, we will take those criteria one step further, supporting farmers to validate their specialist sustainability practices and companies to stand out from their competitors.

For example:

• In version 1.4 of our Sustainable Agriculture Standard, farms are required to use cover crops and other measures to protect their soil. In our future Regenerative Agriculture Standard, farms must maintain a specific percentage of their land with cover crops, crop residues, or mulch.

• Version 1.4 of our Sustainable Agriculture Standard discusses typical regenerative agriculture practices, such as grafting and renovation, and promotes the introduction of climate-resilient seedlings and plants. In the Regenerative Agriculture Standard, we will build on this requirement to guide farmers towards selecting plant varieties and planting materials that also benefit productivity and biodiversity.

We required farms to record living wage indicator data.

There were three core living wage requirements as well as one self-selected and one smart meter requirement.

Living wage comparisons were limited to the Global Living Wage Coalition benchmark.

Our previous approach introduced measures to help Certificate Holders close the living wage gap for farm workers (from initial assessments to setting goals and measuring progress). However, we often encountered challenges with implementation that prevented us from achieving the level of impact needed in this urgent, yet highly complex, area. Contributing factors included a focus on local contexts (which constrained reach), limited data on farmer and worker livelihoods, and the additional reporting burden placed upon farmers by the data collection criteria.  

As part of the overall streamlining of our standard, version 1.4 combines the three core living wage requirements into one. Additionally, we no longer require a specific tool or mandated method for the calculation of living wage, providing farmers with the flexibility needed to put these calculations into practice.

In parallel to these updates, we are also developing several new initiatives outside our Sustainable Agriculture Standard—from more reliable and user-friendly measurement tools and project-based offerings to an entire specialized certification solution dedicated to livelihoods (Note: the former self-selected and smart meter requirements from version 1.3. will be repositioned to this solution). All told, this more targeted approach will enable farmers and companies to reinforce their commitment to living wages with greater impact.

Version 1.3

What’s changing in version 1.4?

There were up to 80 potential Supply Chain Requirements.

In streamlining our supply chain requirements, we’ve focused on clearer language and less repetition. The total number of potential requirements has been reduced to 28.

For example:

• We merged requirements 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 from version 1.3 into one new requirement that covers all traceability activities.

• In our shared responsibility requirements, we listened to feedback that stakeholders found the terms “Sustainability Differential” and “Sustainability Investment” unnecessarily complicated. These mechanisms have been merged into one simplified payment, and we will use the term “premium” moving forward.

The Supply Chain Requirements of version 1.3 of our Sustainable Agriculture Standard included many social criteria.

We refined our social requirements to prioritize those that drive meaningful impact at the supply chain level. While the Supply Chain Requirements of version 1.4 will continue to strengthen support for human rights in high-risk areas, they will chiefly focus on topics that have the most value for our supply chain actors: management, administration, traceability, and premium payments.  

The payment of royalties was not previously included as a requirement in our standard.

The payment of royalties is now included as a requirement of our updated standard.

Version 1.3

What’s changing in version 1.4?

In most cases, supply chain Certificate Holders were audited yearly.

In response to feedback, we adjusted requirements to facilitate more focused audits and reduce both audit time and pre-audit preparation.  

Moving forward, we will continue with our risk-based approach to verification levels and further reduce audit frequency. Supply chain Certificate Holders may now only need to undergo audits every two or three years.

We have also reduced the number of verification levels from five to three and clearly explained in our Certification Rules which Certificate Holders fall into each level, making the supply chain risk assessment simpler and more transparent  

Supply chain Certificate Holders needed to perform their audits within a rigid time schedule.

The above changes will make the audit schedule more flexible, allowing Certificate Holders and Certification Bodies to choose timing that works best for them. It will also enable more combined audits, helping to reduce costs for Certificate Holders.

We required retail and brand owners to be certified.

Requiring all supply chain actors to achieve certification regardless of their engagement level with certified ingredients has added a complexity beyond the limited impact it provides. Therefore, retail and brand owners that do not engage in activities like processing or packing are no longer required to obtain certification. They can still choose to work with the Rainforest Alliance at that level if they wish, but it is not mandatory.

All farm Certificate Holders were required to complete yearly surveillance audits after their initial certification audit.

In our new Certification Rules, as well as Auditing Rules, consistently high-performing farm Certificate Holders can qualify for three incentive levels based on their certification audit results.

• Good performance on a prior audit will result in a reduced sample size for the following audit.

• Great performance can further reduce scope and sample size if the Certificate Holder meets additional requirements.

• Outstanding performance from Certificate Holders that also meet other strict requirements (e.g., no nonconformities related to social requirements or deforestation, while maintaining physical traceability) can result in potential exemption from their second surveillance audit.  

This change will not only save farm Certificate Holders valuable time and resources, but it will also support audits to become more risk-focused and impactful.  

Note: Local policies may override these incentives. The Rainforest Alliance retains the right to revoke any incentive if a Certificate Holder is deemed high-risk, and Certification Bodies can equally request exceptions for high-risk Certificate Holders.

In previous versions of our Certification Rules and Auditing Rules, we required verification of geodata and deforestation risk.

Based on feedback from our partners, we are strengthening our Certification Rules and Auditing Rules to better verify geodata and assess deforestation risk. We’ve introduced clearer rules for how Certification Bodies should audit deforestation risk mitigation management systems and specified the types of evidence they need to collect. Additionally, the Environment Annex now includes more rigorous checks for Certificate Holders in areas identified as high risk for deforestation.

Our Certification Rules and Auditing Rules were used for both Supply Chain and Farm Certificate Holders.  

Certification Rules and Auditing Rules are now divided according to target audience. We now have Farm Certification Rules, Farm Auditing Rules, and a single set of Supply Chain Certification and Auditing Rules.

We required licenses to be renewed annually according to set dates (12 months). Certification Bodies had to request a license in the Rainforest Alliance Certification Platform after each audit on behalf of Certificate Holders for them to maintain certification.

We will no longer require Certificate Holders to have a license; certificates will remain valid provided the verification requirements are met. This approach aims to simplify processes, reducing the administrative burden caused by the previous misalignment between three-year certificates and one-year licenses.